Re:Tech firms push back against White House efforts to diver...
by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @11:01PM
(#6925816)
> Is there precedent for a party to put up a different choice in the primary when there's a reigning incumbent?
The parties elect their candidates in a primary before putting them on the ballot in the general election. But parties don't like primaries: You have two of your own candidates saying bad things about each other in public, taking specific stances necessary to win a primary that may be disadvantageous in the general election, and using campaign money that could otherwise have been used against the other party in the general election.
So the result is that if the incumbent wants to run again, generally no one from the same party will be willing to mount a primary challenge, and anyone who does will raise the ire of other party members for causing trouble and wasting money. Hence the absurdly high incumbency rate.
Re:Tech firms push back against White House efforts to diver...
by bmelton on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @11:31PM
(#6925913)
That's exactly what I would have expected, which is why, I suppose, that it hasn't ever happened since primary voting became open to full registered party members.
The parties elect their candidates in a primary before putting them on the ballot in the general election. But parties don't like primaries: You have two of your own candidates saying bad things about each other in public, taking specific stances necessary to win a primary that may be disadvantageous in the general election, and using campaign money that could otherwise have been used against the other party in the general election.
So the result is that if the incumbent wants to run again, generally no one from the same party will be willing to mount a primary challenge, and anyone who does will raise the ire of other party members for causing trouble and wasting money. Hence the absurdly high incumbency rate.